Can you answer a question here? Can you scroll back to the instance you used this "hypothetical quotation" and make a case for it being anything but discrimination? Surely you are aware of the negative connotation the phrase carries when used to belittle groups... that was my point.

And what was your point when you said

Quote:

It is bad enough to tolerate liberals but closed-mined liberals are another thing entirely...

then?

It's just that if you're going to whine about discrimination and belittling groups, it's probably not a good idea to do it in the next fucking sentence.

... on my ignore, but I clicked his post just to see how he replied to my point...

which I felt deserved response since I was named as the reference. Moreover, that was separate and apart from my point of depicting the lack of tolerance from mosque developers to majority sentiment (pick a poll) against construction.

which I felt deserved response since I was named as the reference. Moreover, that was separate and apart from my point of depicting the lack of tolerance from mosque developers to majority sentiment (pick a poll) against construction.

Right. That's understood. But if you can write:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camp David

It is bad enough to tolerate liberals but closed-mined liberals are another thing entirely...

that basically loses you the right to complain when someone uses the phrase 'you people'. Ever again.

That's the thing about you people, you Christian-capitalist fundamentalists. You want to be able to say whatever you like, no matter how aggressive and superior. But you just don't think things through. You people. You stupid, foolish, selfish people.

Oh, Jesus. IT IS DISCRIMINATION. That's my point (that you're still missing)! It is the exact kind of discrimination practised by the majority of those opposed to the Park51 Project. No, not every one, but the majority. There is no way you can oppose the center based solely on the fact that it's an Islamic center unless you're blaming Islam, not the terrorists, for 9/11. If you would allow a Christian center there and not an Islamic center, then you're guilty of the "you people" mentality, whether you utter the phrase or not.

Oh... and the phrase itself is borrowed from Ross Perot, that Pinko Commie Liberal...

There is no way you can oppose the center because it's an Islamic center unless you're blaming Islam, not the terrorists, for 9/11.

I think you are wrong here; most of those opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque are opposed to it simply because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Has nothing to do with Islam. Additionally, if all these people are opposed to Islam, why were silent during the construction of the 100s of other New York mosques?

I think you are wrong here; most of those opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque are opposed to it simply because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Has nothing to do with Islam. Additionally, if all these people are opposed to Islam, why were silent during the construction of the 100s of other New York mosques?

So these people would oppose a Christian center there? If not, then you're still missing my point.

You're saying that because the terrorists were Muslim, then all of Islam is responsible!

Nope... I am only saying because the fanatical jihadis who misinterpreted the religion they practice are the one's solely responsible; and thus the World of Islam, of which these fundamentals were a part, should exercise far better judgment on setting up recruitment centers next to jihad sites.

Nope... I am only saying because [sic] the fanatical jihadis who misinterpreted the religion they practice are the one's [sic] solely responsible; [sic] and [sic] thus [you people] should exercise far better judgment on setting up recruitment centers next to jihad sites.

Oh. I see. "Recruitment centers".

Also, you should really learn how to use the semicolon properly, or stop using it altogether. And reread your third grade English book, specifically the chapter concerning conjunctions...

because...; and thus...

Because you're still not seeing the point that you're asking the Muslims developing this community center; Muslims who had nothing at all to do with 9/11; to be sensitive to the sensibilities of bigots who don't differentiate Islam from terrorism; and thus this is the end of our conversation.

Because you're still not seeing the point that you're asking the Muslims developing this community center; Muslims who had nothing at all to do with 9/11; to be sensitive to the sensibilities of bigots who don't differentiate Islam from terrorism; and thus this is the end of our conversation.

Quick question Mr. Sensitivity; would you object to an organization, using the freedom's inherent within the U.S Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment and its freedom of speech, from exercising such freedom wherever they chose? You support that universally?

~

Downtown Atlanta for example? How about the KKK opening up an outreach recruitment office next to the Dr. Martin Luther King Center? According to the First Amendment the KKK would have every right to open a center next door. See a problem?

Back on religion, you support such freedom wherever faithful chose to express it? How about the Japanese opening a Shinto Shrine next door to the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor? See a problem?

Or perhaps the First Amendment should be employed with respect and tolerance as most people understand it to be, except you.... Just because the Mulsims have the right, under US law, to open a mosque next to Ground Zero doesn't mean they should. That's the point you've missed...completely!

So, it would have to be a Christian community center next to the MLK Center in your example. Your side of the story, to be consistent, would to not allow it because it would be insensitive of Christians to build a center next to the site because the KKK is a fanatical wing of the religion.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

For starters, the proposed Islamic Community Center is not "next door" to Ground Zero.

Oh? The building being considered for a mosque was hit on 9/11 by a hijacked airliner's landing gear. Yeah it's next door!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Furthermore... there is, in fact, a Shinto shrine in Honolulu just a few miles from Pearl Harbor that has been there since 10 years after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Just a few miles? And in related news, the mosque developers are tax deadbeats =>

Mosque big owes 224G tax
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 6:41 AM, August 29, 2010
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...#ixzz0y3PiK1ORSharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.

So, it would have to be a Christian community center next to the MLK Center in your example. Your side of the story, to be consistent, would to not allow it because it would be insensitive of Christians to build a center next to the site because the KKK is a fanatical wing of the religion.

Not quite right, you forget that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist Christian pastor, so it might be acceptable to have a Christian Church built across the street. However, since he was an African-American fighting for civil rights then having one of these across the street might be more of an issue:

Some of the people who died on 9/11 were Muslim. The country that was attacked was a country that freely allows Islam to be practiced. FineTunes has no point, except when he's saying "hate groups" and First Amendment rights, he's saying his statement is somehow applicable to the entire Islamic faith.

The only people opposed to the project are bigots or those who are worried about the feelings of bigots. Period. And that includes Howard Dean, so it's not a partisan issue.

IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO MY POST, NO I AM NOT CALLING ISLAM A HATE GROUP. IF YOU HAVE READ MY POST IN THIS THREAD, IT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE RIGHT OF THE CORDOBA/PARK 51 ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER/MOSQUE BEING BUILT BOTH AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND AS A MORAL RIGHT.

I offer the examples above in response to CD's and BR's statement of building a KKK or Christian building across from MLK memorial in Atlanta.

The question is valid in light of the Supreme Court ruling in NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA V. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, 432 U. S. 43 (1977). In that case the issue was also a 1st amendment issue--freedom speech and the right to assemble. Even the ACLU sided with the NSPA. If raising this issue makes me a bigot or racist in your eyes, then you are being narrow minded if you can't debate the issue without raising or falsely accusing me being anti Islamic.

If you are referring to another post, please quote in your post then it will be more clear who you are referring.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Please cite how this statement relates to the Park51 Project in any way.

I was referring to NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA V. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) as a case where the Supreme Court held:

Quote:

1. The Illinois Supreme Court's order is a final judgment for purposes of this Court's jurisdiction, since it finally determined the merits of petitioners' claim that the injunction will deprive them of First Amendment rights during the period of appellate review.
2. The State must allow a stay where procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review, are not provided, and the Illinois Supreme Court's order denied this right.

....

after the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court:

Quote:

The Illinois Supreme Court denied a stay of the trial court's injunction prohibiting petitioners from marching, walking, or parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America or otherwise displaying the swastika, and from distributing pamphlets or displaying materials inciting or promoting hatred against Jews or persons of any faith, ancestry, or race, and also denied leave for an expedited appeal.

This case was also a First Amendment issue.

The examples in my post were in response to CD's and BR's question what if a KKK center was built across MLK Memorial in Atlanta. I thought that this was a free forum--if I'm incorrect in my assumption, then I'm wasting my time here and will move on

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

The examples in my post were in response to CD's and BR's question what if a KKK center was built across MLK Memorial in Atlanta.

Did you read the posts in the thread? That wasn't BR's question at all. It was Camp David's question, and BR was responding to it, saying the comparison is absurd (which it is).

You were responding to BR saying he was "not quite right" in saying the correct analogy would be:

Muslim center:Ground Zero::Christian Center:MLK Memorial

That is the correct analogy, as BR pointed out.

Then you somehow brought "hate groups" into the mix, while knowing all along we're discussing the Islamic Community's (not a hate group) right to build a community center near Ground Zero. If I misunderstood your point, there's a very good reason why.

some of the people who died on 9/11 were muslim. The country that was attacked was a country that freely allows islam to be practiced. Finetunes has no point, except when he's saying "hate groups" and first amendment rights, he's saying his statement is somehow applicable to the entire islamic faith.

Not a bigot? Riiiight.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO SEE THE POINT I'M RAISING AND HAVE NOT READ MY PREVIOUS POST IN THIS THREAD OR IN OTHER RELATED THREADS

we do not need this hatred here. Segovius started this thread, hopefully to further the understandings is islam. We should take the time to try to understand it and practice the tenants of your own faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

We can only hope that people of all faiths and non-faiths will work for the better world, but history, current events comments here seem to indicate otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

That was one of the points of these threads FineTunes - this and the Christian one - there are very many really positive things happening out there....far more than ever before.

We just don't get to hear about them. I don't think there's any agenda to prevent this as such - it's more that 'good news' is not News.

But it's out there and it's happening and if we can avoid focussing on the bad things and celebrate the good positive things then it will accelerate the process!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

When I read about this, I was outraged that "Christians" could take part in something like this

childressp wrote, "The test of a society's values is when adherence is difficult, not when its easy. The Constitution is quite clear here. Banning an Islamic cultural center ..... is impinging on the right of Muslims to practice their religion. We all may not like it, but as I said, the real test is when sticking to our values is difficult."

You missed the point. It's not "they all" it's "we all" may not like it. So all of us as a society are diminished if we do not stand for the right to build the mosque at the site. If we as a society stand for religious freedom, then we can't stop the mosque being built.

The hatred you mention is not being perpetrated by the muslims who want to build the mosque--it comes from many like minded people who are espousing hatred to all muslims. I'm sure that there are muslims here that do not like the US or people of other religions, however, we can't hate a group for the failings of some.

No one is "hiding behind the Constitution". Simply stated: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Then maybe you should have said "all of you or you all" to include all Americans--I'm a US Cit. so you should have included me.

Some of the people who died on 9/11 were Muslim. The country that was attacked was a country that freely allows Islam to be practiced. FineTunes has no point, except when he's saying "hate groups" and First Amendment rights, he's saying his statement is somehow applicable to the entire Islamic faith.

Not a bigot? Riiiight.

CONTINUING:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

There should be no reason why St. Nicolas should have any problems being allowed to be rebuilt--where is their support?

''St. Nicholas has nothing to do with this mosque controversy. We believe in religious freedom, and whether the mosque should or shouldn't be there, that's a whole different dialogue," said the Rev. Mark Arey, archdiocese spokesman.
''But it's a rising tide that lifts all boats. People say the mosque has been greenlighted, but why not this church?"

It brings the issue of CAN they or do they have THE RIGHT to build the Park 51, Cordoba Project to an end and focuses on whether they SHOULD. There is no question that they have the right to build the center at the location, but there have been too many arguments about this part, ignoring whether is should be built. Please watch and discuss the issue on this perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

In your case it appears that you are a bigot in true terms by anyone's standards--liberal, conservative or extremist. Fortunately you edited your comments, however you should have done so before you posted it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

It is unfortunate that the opposition to the Park 51 Islamic Center and Mosque is not the only case of opposition. It appears that the US does have a problem of Islamophobia.

Not quite right, you forget that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist Christian pastor, so it might be acceptable to have a Christian Church built across the street. However, since he was an African-American fighting for civil rights then having one of these across the street might be more of an issue:

Downtown Atlanta for example? How about the KKK opening up an outreach recruitment office next to the Dr. Martin Luther King Center? According to the First Amendment the KKK would have every right to open a center next door. See a problem?

Or perhaps the First Amendment should be employed with respect and tolerance as most people understand it to be, except you.... Just because the Mulsims have the right, under US law, to open a mosque next to Ground Zero doesn't mean they should. That's the point you've missed...completely!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Bad example, David. Here's an analogy for you:

KKK:Christians::Jihadists:Muslims

So, it would have to be a Christian community center next to the MLK Centerin your example. Your side of the story, to be consistent, would to not allow it because it would be insensitive of Christians to build a center next to the site because the KKK is a fanatical wing of the religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Not quite right, you forget that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist Christian pastor, so it might be acceptable to have a Christian Church built across the street. However, since he was an African-American fighting for civil rights then having one of these across the street might be more of an issue:

The question now is whether any hate group is allotted the same right to the 1st Amendment?--Please cite cases. \

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Incorrect. It's the mainstream group being conflated with the fringe group that is the issue here. My analogy stands, regardless of MLK's faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Please cite how this statement relates to the Park51 Project in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

I was referring to NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA V. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) as a case where the Supreme Court held:

after the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court:

This case was also a First Amendment issue.

The examples in my post were in response to CD's and BR's question what if a KKK center was built across MLK Memorial in Atlanta. I thought that this was a free forum--if I'm incorrect in my assumption, then I'm wasting my time here and will move on

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Did you read the posts in the thread? That wasn't BR's question at all. It was Camp David's question, and BR was responding to it, saying the comparison is absurd (which it is).

You were responding to BR saying he was "not quite right" in saying the correct analogy would be:

Muslim center:Ground Zero::Christian Center:MLK Memorial

That is the correct analogy, as BR pointed out.

Then you somehow brought "hate groups" into the mix, while knowing all along we're discussing the Islamic Community's (not a hate group) right to build a community center near Ground Zero. If I misunderstood your point, there's a very good reason why.

How about the KKK opening up an outreach recruitment office next to the Dr. Martin Luther King Center? According to the First Amendment the KKK would have every right to open a center next door. See a problem?

Which raises the issue of having a hate group who is diametrically opposed to
to another group having a center built across the street of the other group's memorial center. The question would be not whether the KKK had the right to do so, but whether they should.

My question was directed at whether they had the right under the Constitution. Citing NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA V. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, 432 U. S. 43 (1977), it could be construed that they might have the right under the First Amendment.

Where the confusion on my part lies in BR's analogy of the statement KKK:Christians::Jihadists:Muslims which I took as BR's statement. BR then offers CD's statement as Christian community center next to the MLK Center in your example or CCC:MLK so to continue with the statement is it then CCC:MLK::Jihadist:Muslims? BR then completes the analogy as to be consistent, would to not allow it because it would be insensitive of Christians to build a center next to the site because the KKK is a fanatical wing of the religion. Where does the CCC being built next to the KKK come in CCC:KKK?

Your statement makes it more clear what BR's analysis is and BR should have clarified it as such.KKK:MLK≠Muslim Center:Ground Zero makes more sense. TT statement Muslim center:Ground Zero::Christian Center:MLK Memorial

Where I believe the failure to communicate on my lies in the thought that I'm equating the Park 51 group as a hate group though the example that I gave. My question was poorly phrased and I meant only to ask the question, not referring to the Park 51 group, but whether a hate group has the same rights as other groups in building centers near sensitive areas. I was not comparing the Park 51 group or any Islamic group with any hate groupIf I gave that impression, I'm extremely sorry and I apologize.

As I stated in my two long post here and if you have read any of my post in the Segovius' Official Islam Thread! you should know that I am not anti Islamic or have any hatred of Muslims. IMHO the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque should be built at that location.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

The only people opposed to the project are bigots or those who are worried about the feelings of bigots. Period.

The only card in the Democrat deck is the race card and here you see it in action; despite the fact that (1) most Americans and certainly most New Yorkers are against this project, (2) despite the fact that opposition to the project is not about Islam but one of respect for the feelings of Ground Zero survivors, and (3) despite the fact that alternate sites for the Mosque are available, Democrats keep resorting to the race card and demonizing all those opposed to this project.

The only card in the Democrat deck is the race card and here you see it in action; despite the fact that (1) most Americans and certainly most New Yorkers are against this project, (2) despite the fact that opposition to the project is not about Islam but one of respect for the feelings of Ground Zero survivors, and (3) despite the fact that alternate sites for the Mosque are available, Democrats keep resorting to the race card and demonizing all those opposed to this project.

Since when can majorities decide what minorities can do or not?

There are inalienable rights guaranteed by the US-constitution, free speech, property-rights and freedom of religion are part of it, if you want to sacrifice these because you think that the majority thinks something is insensitiv (by the way the majority are bigots) you might as well throw away the constitution.

By the way why are churches allowed near schools and kindergardens? I heard some priests engaged in sexual abuse of children and youths...

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

When the majority, in this particular case, knows better than the minority. You are aware we live in a democracy where the people govern? Let's put this issue up for a proposition vote in November and let the people of New York decide. That's the solution!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

There are inalienable rights guaranteed by the US-constitution, free speech, property-rights and freedom of religion are part of it...

You're absolutely right here; there are guarantees in the U.S. Constitution and nobody is attempting to deny those to Muslims in the practice of their faith. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution advances the selfsame protection that the other 100+ mosques in New York City practice - rights that, mind you, no other Muslim nation in the world advances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

... if you want to sacrifice these because you think that the majority thinks something is insensitiv (by the way the majority are bigots) you might as well throw away the constitution.

Here is where you go astray I feel; nobody is asking the abrogation of rights, merely the respect of others. That's it! Stop trying to make this a Constitutional and/or religious issue when 100+ other Islamic institutions in New York City are afforded those Constitutional protections. It is only one location that is in question, by the majority of Americans, and the majority of New Yorkers, know that construction will inflame the anxiety of 09/11/01 and, in the end, harm religious freedom in the long run...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

....By the way why are churches allowed near schools and kindergardens? I heard some priests engaged in sexual abuse of children and youths...

When the majority, in this particular case, knows better than the minority. You are aware we live in a democracy where the people govern? Let's put this issue up for a proposition vote in November and let the people of New York decide. That's the solution!

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

First what you suggest is a recipe for tyranny. It's call tyranny of the masses or tyranny of the majority. Second, we do not live in a democracy. We live (or used to anyway) in a federal, constitutional republic. We have a constitution and a form of government that was intended to protect minorities from majorities. We have a constitution that was intended to protect people's lives, liberty and property. If the property on which this facility is to be built is private and someone (like you) decides that something that is generally speaking a peaceful and non-rights violating use of the property is to be put to a vote...then we might as well just shred the fucking constitution right now, all throw up our hands and say we no longer value liberty in this country. I'll grant you, this is already happening in a myriad of small and incremental ways already. But this is just naked aggression and violation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camp David

You're absolutely right here; there are guarantees in the U.S. Constitution and nobody is attempting to deny those to Muslims in the practice of their faith.

But in effect this would be. There is no legal reason to deny these people the right to build this thing. None.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camp David

Here is where you go astray I feel; nobody is asking the abrogation of rights, merely the respect of others.

Untrue. If you are suggesting putting to a vote what someone can do with their own property, then you are suggesting the abrogation of their rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camp David

It is only one location that is in question, by the majority of Americans, and the majority of New Yorkers, know that construction will inflame the anxiety of 09/11/01 and, in the end, harm religious freedom in the long run.

Wrong again. What you're suggesting is the very first step in ending religious freedom in the long run. Let them build the thing.

If there are Ground Zero survivors who oppose the Community Center for no reason other than religion, than they are just as bigoted as anyone else who shares that view. Perhaps Park51 can help to heal their wounds and show them that their bigotry toward the whole of Islam is misguided.

35 percent said they favor the construction near ground zero and another 15 percent said they have no opinion. But when asked which comes closer to their opinion, only 27 percent said Park51 should be built because moving it would compromise American values and six percent gave no answer.

Quote:

In other words, about eight percent of New York residents who said they favor the construction of the Islamic center and mosque near ground zero, when given the option, prefer the developers to move to a less controversial location.
But New Yorkers as a group could not decide how far away from ground zero the mosque should move. One-fifth said more than 20 blocks away from ground zero, 18 percent said 10 to 20 blocks, and seven percent said five to ten blocks.

Mr. Paterson on Tuesday made the suggestion of offering state-owned property far from the site of the former World Trade Center as a means of resolving a fierce national debate over freedom of religion and the memory of Sept. 11 victims.

One of the problems with this solution besides being the wrong solution, is that the state owned property cannot be used to build any religious structuresas there have been several Supreme Court decisions that prevent religious symbols being on public owned lands. Moving the Park 51 Islamic Center would be sending the worn message that the US an intolerant of Muslims as undesirables.

A growing concern is that opposition to the building of the Park 51 Islamic Center is not an isolated incident:

Quote:

In the Nashville suburb of Murfreesboro, opponents of a new Islamic center say they believe the mosque will be more than a place of prayer. They are afraid the 15-acre site that was once farmland will be turned into a terrorist training ground for Muslim militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. Government. .....The Murfreesboro mosque is one of three planned in the Nashville area that have drawn recent scrutiny.

Shelton was among several hundred demonstrators recently who wore "Vote for Jesus" T-shirts and carried signs that said: "No Sharia law for USA!," referring to the Islamic code of law. Others took their opposition further, spray painting the sign announcing the "Future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro" and tearing it up.

In Temecula, California, opponents brought dogs to protest a proposed 25,000-square-foot mosque that would sit on four acres next to a Baptist church. Opponents worry it will turn the town into haven for Islamic extremists, but mosque leaders say they are peaceful and just need more room to serve members.

Neighbors didn't want his family to build a mosque in 1979 in Neenah, Wisconsin, because they didn't understand who Muslims were.

The PEW survey shows that the favorable opinions of Islam has decreased from 41% to 30% from 2005 to 2010; however it should be noted that the unfavorable rating during the same period only rose 2% (36% to 38%).

There appears to be a difference between partisanship:

Quote:

more than two-to-one (54% to 21%), Republicans express an unfavorable opinion of Islam; the balance of opinion among independents is negative (40% unfavorable vs. 28% favorable). Among Democrats, favorable opinions of Islam outnumber unfavorable ones by 41% to 27%.